AN APOLOGY REQUIRED

WINNIPEG police officers were understandably dismayed that the man
accused of shooting the officers in December has been released on
bail, the judge having been convinced Daniell Anderson was neither a
risk to the community or of fleeing.

Their abusive comments, however, directed toward the judge are
unacceptable and the officers must formally apologize to Court of
Queen's Bench Justice Karen Simonsen. The apology should make clear
that the Winnipeg Police Service supports the justice system and its
administration.

Anything short of an apology would leave the impression that at least
some of the police service's officers question the credibility of the
justice system. The police, like the prosecutors and judges, are
servants of the system. The system is not perfect and judges make
errors. Ms. Simonsen last week, having heard details in private not
available to the public, concluded the community's confidence in the
justice system would not suffer as a result of Mr. Anderson's
release; an earlier judge felt differently and refused him bail.
Officers were left with a keen sense that Mr. Anderson's rights
trumped those of the three colleagues shot when they stormed his
house, looking for drugs.

A search found, according to evidence, marijuana and Percocet. Mr.
Anderson was charged with attempted murder and drug offences,
including possessing for trafficking. This spring, he pled guilty to
that charge -- in a deal to have drug charges against his family
dropped -- and was sentenced to time already served in custody. When
Ms. Simonsen granted him bail, he went home smiling, igniting the
fury in the courtroom last week.

One officer was heard to say someone -- Daniell Anderson? -- should
have been killed, while the mutterings of others called into
disrepute the justice system. Said in the heat of the moment, they
were nonetheless alarming remarks. They raise the possibility that
officers believe Mr. Anderson does not deserve protection under the
law and that the courts, the jurists, the legal system is either
ill-equipped or unwilling to protect the community and to weigh the
rights of the accused against those of victims and citizens. Citizens
are free to hold such opinions, but the officers' public outbursts
crossed into incitement. That is a dangerous route for those who
swear to uphold the law, and to whom every citizen must look for protection.

Mr. Anderson, out of jail, is like any other citizen now, in that
fact. He, like all individuals, must count on the protection of the
police service, if in need. The officer who publicly declared that
someone should have been killed needs to be asked what he meant by
it, and whether his sentiments cloud his ability to perform his
duties. Most immediately, Ms. Simonsen must know she has the respect
of the officers and the police service, and that requires an apology.